Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1887-07-25

have occurred where Jurors have thrown
themselves ia the way of parties interested,
or their attorneys, ard have made PROPOSE
tons looking to their corruption.
In our lower Courts even, the pernicious
system prevails, and Instances have &C.
Cured where, for $50 or 500, man could
have panel of jurors Of his own selection
summoned.
The most prominent detectives in San
Francisco and the oldest Sheriffs in the
State have openly stated that, as matters
now stand in Sacramento county no con-
victon can be had in any case where the
defendant can raise 500, and the records of
cur Courts for the last few years
give credence to that statement. 1t is very
evident that in this matter
THE TROUBLE COMMENCES AT THE FoUS-
TAIN-HEAD.
The law provides that in January of each
year the Superior Judges shall make an
order designating the number of grand and
trial jurors necessary for the transaction of
business; that the Board of Supervisors
shall select the names; that the persons so
selected shall be assessed, their names on
the last assessment roll, citizen voter
shall be free from ground of exemption, of
good moral character, etc.
1t has been the custom of the Super
visors, instead of making their selections
| in open Board, to delegate the selection of
| SO names to each of the five members, 400
being the total. That these selections have
| been careiessly made has been demon
strated repeatedly. OF the fifty last drawn
| from the box, six were not on the assess
ment roll, and the name of one fortunate
| individual was dug out three times, and
while serving on a civil case in one
department his name was called
MOI IN ba oil hA
Judges at every drawing from the large
box have complained from the bench
of the number of jurors whose names APP
pear and who are exempt by reason of be-
ing officers, exempt firemeu or non-tax-
payers, and the expense of per diem and
mileage for these jurors who never serve
forms very considerable item. AS Su-
| pervisors are in many instances
UNDER OBLIGATIONS To WARD POLITICIANS,
And as il is an admitted fact that each of
these bosses is surrounded by a herd of
his disciples who are always looking for
soft sits" and an opportunity to make a
few dollars without working, il will be
| readily understood how suggestions will
come to Supervisors from gentlemen
of political influence to put in a
few of their pets. In the
| last six years a sprinkling OF the names OF
jurors. They openly say that they solicited
| that they might be placed upon the list.
| and they justify their act by claiming that
| business and working men have too much
A, to do to attend to jury duty, and as they
have the time and inclination to serve. they
| say they do so to accommodate the better
element. No instance has vet been known
where one of these men ever had an opin-
| ion, and it seems little inconsistent that,
with their abundance of leisure, they
| failed to keep pace with events as they are
| recorded from day to day in the public
press, and hence are never disqualified to
| sit in any case.
1t has happened in very many instances
| that members of the same co partnership
have been drawn in the same panel. and
occasionally two blood relations in a family,
| despite the law to the contrary.
IT is NOTORIOUS
| That there are men in this State who are
| jury brokers, go-betweens, and that we
| Lave delegation of them in Sacramento
is borne out by the results of criminal trials
and in civil cases, and by the whole line of
| facts cited. 1t is an evidence of corruption
| that there are men returned to
the Courts as Jurors who indus
| triously put themselves in the way of
one side of case, and give IT to
understand that their inclinations are that
way that they will be safe men to take
Once in the jury box, these fellows go for
| the side that has the coin. 1t is said by
| those who pretend to know that in cases
| in minor Courts certain parties have fur
| nished lists to officers of persons to sum-
! mon as jurors, and that in such cases the
| lists invariably come from the defendants
| side.
1t is understood that the Judges have no
power to check the corruption complained
Of, for they have no right to interfere with
the Supervisors, and no power to discharge
jurors except on application and a legal ex-
cuse. 1t has been q matter of suspicion. if
not of absolute conviction, with the Judges
that
CORRUPTION AMONG JURORS
Has been prolific in Sacramento county.
They do not express themselves, but we
believe that if compelled 10 do so, they
could make some very significant state
| ments. Concerning the Supervisors it is
! not to be inferred that they have corruptly
put up lists because there is not evil
dence of such criminalify but there is
evidence, as has been cited, OF carelessness
OF q gross order; it is also true thst they
| may be imposed upon, and by
importantly be led TO make up
inferior lists without contemplating
jury brokers and bosses adroitly to secure
the listing Of Jurors and be really ignor-
| ant of the use that has been made of them.
But at the least, .he carelessness, the lack
OF rigor, strictness and caution, are mex
cusable in SUP .-lors as in the case of any
other officers. If the Board of Supervisors
desires. it can by scrutiny, by careful exer-
else of their sacred prerogative, select per-
sons 10 serve as jurors that will absolutely
exclude even the suspicion of fraud, or of
jury broking. That this is not done, and
| rhat in consequence there is corruption, is
| the fault of the Supervisors, and of the
Supervisors alone.